SADASHIVAIAH Vs. MANJULAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is by the legal heirs of the Objector in Execution No.3/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkanayakanahalli. Sri. Vinaya Keerthy M, learned counsel for the petitioners, placing a memo for disposal of the petition submits that the first respondent has filed the suit in O.S. No.171/2007 for partition of different immovable properties including the properties that are purchased by the Objector. However, the first respondent's husband has executed the sale deed even before the date of the suit transferring these two properties in his favour, and with the decree in O.S. No.171/2007 and the commencement of the execution proceedings, the Objector filed this application which is rejected by the impugned order.

(2.) Sri. Vinaya Keerthy M also submits that the first respondent, during the pendency of the present writ petition, has entered into appropriate agreement with the petitioners, and in performance of such agreement, she has executed the sale deed for one of the two properties purchased and the sale deed for the other property is pending execution because the required sketch under Sec. 11[e] of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 is not yet issued by the revenue authorities.

(3.) Sri. Vinaya Keerthy M further submits that in the afore circumstances, the writ petition could be disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to work out their remedies if the sale deed is not completed for the second property. It is obvious from the subsequent events that this writ petition is rendered infructuous, and the petitioners can, if there is cause of action in the light of the subsequent events, pursue their remedies. As such, the memo for disposal is taken on record, and the petition stands disposed of with the observation as aforesaid.